[navcom]

digital is not art simple, just get used to it. you have chosen something with no merit, and receives no respect.

I see no merit in continuing with this conversation/thread. It is going nowhere as you cannot even admit that people will differ from your own opinion and continue to put down those who don't agree with you....telling them to "just get used to it" and that their medium for artistic expression deserves zero merit. Now that will get you lots of respect.

There are folks on this forum I disagree with and who disagree with me, but I love 'em all and we all get along smashingly. We all agree on our love of photography and we do not degrade another's view of art or another's opinion as being "inferior". I hate nobody here and love this forum.

But respect is something earned even if you don't agree with each other...and with your comment, you will receive none from me. Nice talking with you.

[MRRiley]

What is focalplus? Is it an old brand of k-mart film?

Blue... "focalplus" was reelitupandup's previous userid which was banned for trolling the exact same drivel he is spouting now.

[mudnmoto]

occonor stuff isnt my taste

Exactly, which doesn't make it ART to YOU, but to the thousands of people who purchased his work, IT IS ART, and that makes him a photographer and an artist.

I, on the other hand, love taking photos. I have 25,000 photos posted on my smugmug, none of them is a work of art to me, I just look for the photo and record the image. Capturing 300-400 individual motocross racers in a day of racing is a different kind of challenge and requires a different set of skills. I also have recorded images of the most photographed natural wonder of the world, Niagara Falls, I like them, never thought of any as art as I use them for illustration purposes. However, someone just today thought of one of them as art and made a purchase of one...in a 16 x 20 size. That still doesnt make me think I am an artist, I am a photographer displaying images made with my chosen medium.

Whether its art or JUST digital images, I recorded 364 sales last month, of ordinary motocross racing, plus some landscapes. I like that, cuz thats what I do, I like birds, flowers, clouds, a million sunsets.

On the otherhand, I do not care for "urban" photography, ghetto photography, marbles, baskets and park benches, they have been done a million times also. Everyone has different tastes.

You had a couple of pictures that caught my eye, however since I cannot be openminded in my critique, I will not give you an individual or overall opinion of your work because of this thread.

I respect the photographers here as they all have a unique vision and choice of medium and they all respect each others choices and styles.

[MRRiley]

photography is not art. darkroom printing is.

"Darkroom printing" is a craft, not an ART. The final product MAY be ART but the mere act of printing in a darkroom does not make the print ART. If that were true I would have about a half million valuable pieces of art in my files.

digital is not art and has no possibility of being so ...i will explain

when i create a complicated print in the darkroom with layers ,sandwiches, double exposures tilt and shift,paper contours,dodge,burn,masking,borders. etc, it is impossible for me to repeat what i did due to its complexity and difficulty. in fact evem some fairly basic manouvers in the darkroom are very difficult to recapture/impossible.
therefore it is individual and a one off ,it could be rephotographed but it would be ruined and therefore inferior and a copy/illegal

The work and decisions process in Photoshop can be just as complicated and difficult or impossible to repeat, thus making the initial final image art, by the standard you have postulated.

digital is a copy, it can be reproduced billions of times if neccessary, even if it is a complicated picture. therefore ceases to be original and unique. ie art

The fact that it can be reproduced multiple times from the final file "negative" is irrelevant. Ever heard of the process of "printing" on negative film to capture all of the darkroom processes in particularly complicated images, into a final large format positive transparency from which a corresponding contact negative is then made. Bet ya never did that Pablo!!!!

This is also similar to creation of a master lithograph to allow limited editions of virtually any form of 2 dimensional art.

A reproduction of a Picasso is still ART, it is just more affordable than the original. If only originals were considered ART, then very few if any of us would pocess any ART whatsoever.

explain this then, i can reproduce a digital file perfectly how would you care to reproduce two hours on one print in the darkroom

Been there, done that countless times...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

i dont think you will understand this concept as you have vested interests in digital.

And YOU don't have some strange vested interest in FILM. Maybe you work for KODAK in the film department and they are threatening to lay you off...

digital will never be seen as art unless you add a human unrepeatable aspect to it, of which you cannot do with digital.....full stop

If you stay away from programmed actions in your workflow, there are countless "unrepeatable" aspects to producing a final digital image.

...
thats my last word as this concept seems to go over you head.

Promises promises....

By the way... where is your camera store? I want to make sure I don't shop there...

[woof]

This is the worst kind of reductionism.

"If you think about traditional photography, it’s taking the light in a scene and sampling it and converting it into an image that hopefully looks like what you saw when you were standing there,” said Aseem Agarwala, a senior research scientist at San Jose, Calif.-based Adobe Systems."

I think a lot of people might disagree with this. This is a very shallow view of photography. It's like saying in painting, hopefully you capture the scene exactly as you saw it. It totally misses the point.

Photography has always been a bit of a mix between the aesthetic and the technical. Lots of different mixes to be more precise. Lot of different mixes by lots of different people with lots of different visions and with varying talents and abilities.

The technical weainies want to take it over and shape it to their [lack of] vision.

Bah, much of this stuff is for people who can't take pictures and need to fix the pictures after the fact without learning the art of handling the technology to begin with. There will be huge market and it will only make them worse at taking pictures - not better. Trust me, there will always be a place for people who can toe the line between technology and art. It is a pretty unique thing and most people simply cannot handle the demands it places on their comfortable ** little ** perspectives.

If I take a picture of my girlfriend which was originally terribly blurry but made sharp as a tack with the computational module in my camera, it still will be total crap if there's a tree growing from her head.

I say again... Bah. They can have it.

[Edit: I kind of use "art" in a looser sense. Given the above discussion, I'd rather not become embroiled in an argument about art and what constitutes same. I do consider photography to be an art and a science in a broader sense.]

woof

[mudnmoto]

digital is a computer controlled process and offers no trace of art or CRAFT lol

So I can utilize either of the services below and have slides made of my DIGITAL photos, then take them into the DARKROOM, develop them and that magically take on the moniker of "ART"???

Slides from Digital, Digital to Slides, Digital Slides

35mm Slides from Digital Camera Images, Art, JPG, PowerPoint - $2/slide - 1-800-296-1885

Lets change the subject here, Pepsi or Coke???

[MRRiley]

This is the worst kind of reductionism.

"If you think about traditional photography, it’s taking the light in a scene and sampling it and converting it into an image that hopefully looks like what you saw when you were standing there,” said Aseem Agarwala, a senior research scientist at San Jose, Calif.-based Adobe Systems."

I think a lot of people might disagree with this. This is a very shallow view of photography. It's like saying in painting, hopefully you capture the scene exactly as you saw it. It totally misses the point.

Photography has always been a bit of a mix between the aesthetic and the technical. Lots of different mixes to be more precise. Lot of different mixes by lots of different people with lots of different visions and with varying talents and abilities.

The technical weainies want to take it over and shape it to their [lack of] vision.

Bah, much of this stuff is for people who can't take pictures and need to fix the pictures after the fact without learning the art of handling the technology to begin with. There will be huge market and it will only make them worse at taking pictures - not better. Trust me, there will always be a place for people who can toe the line between technology and art. It is a pretty unique thing and most people simply cannot handle the demands it places on their comfortable ** little ** perspectives.

If I take a picture of my girlfriend which was originally terribly blurry but made sharp as a tack with the computational module in my camera, it still will be total crap if there's a tree growing from her head.

I say again... Bah. They can have it.

[Edit: I kind of use "art" in a looser sense. Given the above discussion, I'd rather not become embroiled in an argument about art and what constitutes same. I do consider photography to be an art and a science in a broader sense.]

woof

CRAP can be made by a person using a digital camera, or a 35mm film camera or a teakwood 8X10" view camera or a pencil or paintbrush, or a hammer and chisel. Indeed, CRAP can be made using any tool known to man. However, each of those same tools, in the hands of a skilled artisan can be used to create sublime works of ART!

The TOOL is, in the end, IRRELEVANT! The important thing is the creative result, whether that be a photographic print, transparency or digital image, a drawing or painting, a sculpture or whatever medium the artist choses.

If reelitupandup/focalplus's fanatical wish is to work only with film, more power to him... However, his "truth" is not the only "truth". In point of fact, there is NO intrinsic "truth". YOUR "truth" is served when you use whatever tool best suits your visions, needs and abilities.

[mudnmoto]

Pictorico????

Well I guess I will go on and make my sales of my photographic digital work and leave this brainwashed,closed minded, wet behind the ears, young Artist stud, that was taught his art by a crusty, old school, black and white photography professor who found digital photography too complicated for him and chose to badmouth it for semisters on end, frightening his entire class roster into turning their backs on technology.

Or is it the fact that you invested in thousands of dollars of old photographic equipment you cannot move at reasonable prices, because of digital cameras



this is fun

[MRRiley]

use digital if you dont want to learn photography its as simple as that

film is honest, digital isnt
film is unique, digital isnt
film prints are archival, digital isnt
film is art, digital isnt
film is craft, digital isnt
film is available to everyone, digital isnt
film looks good, digital doesnt

film is for art, digital is for ebay..

Film is a MEDIUM.

It is not, in and of itself, ART!

[mudnmoto]

Well 2 years of photographic training at R.I.T back in the 70s (gee, no digital photography back then) 4 gallery displays in the early 80's, several citations and awards from local photographic organizations in the 80's (no digital then either) Recognized in Black and White, Transparency and color print film (mostly wildlife photography) again in the 80's, only in the last 3 years did I venture into digital photography, mostly because I already had photoshop and wanted to play around with it.

So when is your first gallery opening? Where are the buyers of your ART?

I assume pictorico has some ethnic background or is in some way associated with myspace, which may be a good place to SELL your ART???

and I do not make my own prints, so there is no need for me to purchase any kind of paper, all my print work is done in a lab so i can spend more time and money traveling to create my images and income

[mudnmoto]

How can a photo of a winged rat on a park bench be considered art, or for that matter, unique. What be unique would be that pigeon making his own art for you.

It must have taken all of your stealth and prowess to sneek up on that elusive and rare winged wonder.

Art has everything to do with being open minded, and just about every open minded artist became successful and just about every self proclaimed artist faded into the population without as much as a whimper. I would just LOVE to see you expressing yourself this way at a gallery opening........

[Blue]

Blue... "focalplus" was reelitupandup's previous userid which was banned for trolling the exact same drivel he is spouting now.

I figured that out after all the posts he made following mine. I've blocked him. He is the second on there.

[George Lama]

As MrRiley correctly observed, darkroom printing is a craft. Can it lead to art? Of course - Follow the directions, you get a print without going blind... yay. Use your craft and creativity, you could produce a work of art...

However, anyone that claims that darkroom printing in itself is an art might as well claim that running the printing lab at a local Walgreens/Walmart/Rite-Aid makes you a darkroom artist. Ashton Kutcher, save us!

[CSoars]

Through the haze of single-purposed rhetoric he's spouting, I think it's a lament that the process of developing and print-making has left the realm of a specialized and valuable skillset and entered the hands of the masses via picasa, lightroom and photoshop.

I think our troll feels that democratisation of the medium through the removal of analogue components and the necessity of learning a complex skillset has devalued the resulting products as a whole. The intrinsic value of the photograph has been eliminated.

I shoot film and develop it in my one bedroom flat. I scan it and post it on the web, or print it on an inkjet; if it's something worth while I'd consider sending it to a lab to have a proper wet-print made up with an enlarger. I can't afford the time, space or money for a proper darkroom. I don't have pretensions of what art is and isn't supposed to be, nor is a print always the final product. I photograph to document, to learn, and to amuse. Sometimes art is a happy byproduct, but...

[ukbluetooth]

This is one of the silliest discussions I have ever heard.

I originally trained as a chemist and spent the first part of my career designing and synthesising drugs (for the pharmaceutical industry I should add).

I needed a change so took further degrees in microelectronics. Spent subsequent years designing (and making) digital devices.

As a hobby I spent many years exploiting my chemistry skills in darkroom photography. I now spend more time than I should on digital photography.

I don’t think I have ever created a work of art but I live in hope. Chemistry did not make me an artist nor did digital media and tools.

Reelitupandup simply makes no sense. I like some of his pictures but they are not particularly outstanding. I think he really means what he is saying and should be pitied rather than castigated, he obviously has a problem.

Mind you, everyone is entitled to their opinion. My wife is an artist (painter) and she thinks that photography of any sort could never be art. After all, she says “Once you know what you are doing all you have to do is press a button.”

Sometimes it is simply not worth arguing, which is how I have managed to stay married for over 30 years.